I’m not a big fan of Kotkin, but I have no reason to disagree with his observation that:

“Neighborhoods go through what you call a sweet spot,” said Joel Kotkin, author of “The City: A Global History,” who is a critic of some forms of gentrification. “It’s safe, it’s a nice place to live, it still has unique shops and hangouts.”

But this mix rarely lasts forever. “The ecosystems of these neighborhoods are very fragile,” Mr. Kotkin said. “Over-stimulation, and, in a recession, under-stimulation, and you have dangers.”

This is the problem at the center of what I think is the most common form of urban gentrification (it takes other forms in different types of communities), the kind where the old guard are forced out by rising prices and by a so-called “artistic” class with enough cash to set up funky, off-beat retail and service businesses, catering primarily to other members of their class.  In some sense, this is a good thing, because the old guard can be a high-crime area, or an area with significant blight that, after a few years and a few million gallons of sweat and paint, becomes a nice place to live again.  But not for the people who were cornerstones of the neighborhood and who know the neighborhood’s history (I would argue that knowing a place’s history is an important part of really living there, which is why I’ve always felt more at home in Sacramento, even though I spent the first 15 years of my adult life in Portland.)

In Sacramento, the symbol of this kind of gentrification is the gallery.  In article after article about urban renewal you will see phrases like “galleries, restaurants, and retail.” People seem to forget that galleries are not museums, they are retail establishments, and, like any retail establishment, they need customers.  Art galleries have a very small customer base to begin with and, in a recession, the people who want to patronize art because it’s the cool thing to do no longer have money to do so. I’m afraid we’re going to see some closures, unless all of the galleries are owned by people with trust funds. Now that would be interesting.

This kind of gentrification is ephemeral because it is based on the whims of a relatively mobile class of person (young, generally childless, urban professionals with higher than median incomes and/or assets) and a class that is very sensitive to recessionary pressures.  A job that paid high-five figures a few years ago may well be going for a lot less today, and there will be a line out the door of people wanting it. So these people do one of two things: they retreat to their homes and seek entertainment from Netflix and food from grandma’s cookbook, or they move. Neither is good for the funky businesses that depended on their funky clientelle.

Which leads me to a plug for what I think might be a new (renewed?) model for face-to-face social interaction. Today’s Bee had an article about the Sacramento Institute of Fun, which has events about once a month based on the idea that people can get together, have fun, and learn something (and drink).  The price tag may seem high at first, around $25-$30/person for each event, but when you consider that a typical night out at a nightclub, which is a lousy place to be social anyway, will cost easily twice as much (the cab ride home will cost as much), it’s a good deal.

And it’s different.  Maybe my impression is colored by the fact that the instigators are my friends. Maybe it’s because I don’t think of them as bourgeois hipsters (though they are certainly hip). Or maybe it’s because it’s something that hasn’t really been tried before, at least not in this laid-back, non-institutional format (the name notwithstanding). In some sense what the IOF is trying to do is reinvigorate the idea of the salon, but in a much more accessible way. It’s a lecture series for the masses.

There is a difference between neighborhood revitalization and gentrification, and I suppose it is possible to have one without the other, but the two, while different, nevertheless succumb to their mutual attraction and rut behind the bleachers of an as-yet-constructed arena.

It’s getting to the point where I feel like I’m tilting at windmills. But I can’t give up—I know this neighborhood would benefit from the diversity of more people like me moving in. If you need a good place to live, come check out my ‘hood. It’s quirky, but it could use a few more creative types to get it jumping. But no developers—those guys just ruin it for the rest of us.

And many people who believe they are fighting gentrification are frequently themselves responsible for it:

It sure would help attract people like me if there was a record store, too, and not the one with the giant Shakira cutout in the window. I mean a decent one. I went in to see if they had the new Fiery Furnaces, and they had never heard of it. They said they’d see if they could order it for me, but I declined. I mean, what’s the point of supporting a local business if it’s not cool?

Sure The Onion is parody. But it’s funny because it’s true.